movies/tv WTF is wrong with movie critics?

[Misty Shadow 7,059]

7 hours ago, n1029 said:

Do you have real evidence of this that doesn't just involve liking/hating movies you don't? They're at least more honest than that campaign to downvote Captain Marvel before it even released that was the reason the audience reviews got removed. (And I didn't even like that movie either) 

 

Fake news alert, that is not what happened. The "downvoting" of the movie before it was released was done with the Want to See score, as there is no way to review bomb a movie on Rotten Tomatoes before it gets released. Not saying all of them had pure intentions, but if people don't want to see a movie, they should be allowed to say they don't want to see a movie. A lot of them were even providing comments with legitimate reasons. Seriously, never trust what you read on the internet at face value, ever. 

[n1029 224]

3 hours ago, CloudMistDragon said:

Fake news alert, that is not what happened. The "downvoting" of the movie before it was released was done with the Want to See score, as there is no way to review bomb a movie on Rotten Tomatoes before it gets released. Not saying all of them had pure intentions, but if people don't want to see a movie, they should be allowed to say they don't want to see a movie. A lot of them were even providing comments with legitimate reasons. Seriously, never trust what you read on the internet at face value, ever. 

Semantics. Point is non critics can be stupid too. They're no less "unreliable" than you all like to say critics are.

[Olly 1,008]

How could movie critics be wrong when they gave the last jedi such glowing reviews 

[Misty Shadow 7,059]

5 minutes ago, n1029 said:

Semantics. Point is non critics can be stupid too. They're no less "unreliable" than you all like to say critics are.

No one is saying that non-critics are incapable of being stupid, but critics are held to a higher standard because reviewing is their job. If they are neglecting objectivity in their reviews and avoiding making legitimate, deserved criticism (AKA being a critic) of movies that are being sold as "politically correct" out of fear of backlash, they are not doing their job. 

[n1029 224]

20 minutes ago, CloudMistDragon said:

No one is saying that non-critics are incapable of being stupid, but critics are held to a higher standard because reviewing is their job. If they are neglecting objectivity in their reviews and avoiding making legitimate, deserved criticism (AKA being a critic) of movies that are being sold as "politically correct" out of fear of backlash, they are not doing their job. 

Ahem...

 

CRITICS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!!

 

That is both psychologically impossible for a human being assessing a work of art and not the aim of film criticism in the slightest. There may be certain qualities of art that many agree make it good, but that does not mean everyone has to evaluate it on those terms. The goal of film criticism is to have a unique and interesting perspective that makes your views worth reading; whether people agree with your assessment or not. 

 

It is not yours or anyone else's place to say critics (or anyone else) are holding back their true feelings on a movie. No one really knows how they think besides themselves. All these eyeroll inducing hivemind theories like they're all being bribed or being pressured by the PC police, but they're really just human beings who see a lot of movies and get paid to write about them.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2019 by n1029

[Prospekt 10,984]

I don't even pay attention to movie critics anymore, only regular moviegoers. Tons of movies have gotten dismal reviews and then turned out to be regarded as timeless classics.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6647954

[Will Guide 21,325]

5 minutes ago, Prospekt said:

I don't even pay attention to movie critics anymore, only regular moviegoers. Tons of movies have gotten dismal reviews and then turned out to be regarded as timeless classics.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6647954

There's a reason the YMMV trope, Critical Dissonance, exists. When critics and audience members don't agree on a form of entertainment.

[Misty Shadow 7,059]

24 minutes ago, n1029 said:

Ahem...

 

CRITICS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!!

 

That is both psychologically impossible for a human being assessing a work of art and not the aim of film criticism in the slightest. There may be certain qualities of art that many agree make it good, but that does not mean everyone has to evaluate it on those terms. The goal of film criticism is to have a unique and interesting perspective that makes your views worth reading; whether people agree with your assessment or not. 

 

It is not yours or anyone else's place to say critics (or anyone else) are holding back their true feelings on a movie. No one really knows how they think besides themselves. All these eyeroll inducing hivemind theories like they're all being bribed or being pressured by the PC police, but they're really just human beings who see a lot of movies and get paid to write about them.

 

 

As much as I appreciate the yelling, I have to say...

Ahem...

Yes they are. 

A critic is one who judges the quality of a movie to help guide those who are not as well-informed on the qualities that make a film good or bad. A judge of any kind has to be objective to some degree in order to be taken seriously. 

Edited March 18, 2019 by CloudMistDragon

[The Historian 515]

I haven't read reviews from film critics and taken them seriously... ever. I don't let a film critic's opinion influence whether or not I see a movie; I save that for people I know or the general public. They're more apt to align with what I find enjoyable than a film critic. I do, at times, read film critic reviews on movies I've seen to see their take. Sometimes you do get something interesting or thought-provoking out of it, but, usually, it's written in such a way that makes the reviewer sound a little pompous. I might consider what a critic says but I don't heed their suggestion.

Edited March 19, 2019 by The Historian

[Castle Bleck 19,163]

After The Last Jedi and Captain Marvel, I definitely stopped giving Rotten Tomatoes the time of day.

 

RT Bots: "I'll make it very simple and clear: Captain Marvel is really worth a watch. [...]" *Spam it ad nauseam.*

Everyone Else:

Edited March 18, 2019 by A.V.

[n1029 224]

On 3/17/2019 at 8:24 PM, CloudMistDragon said:

As much as I appreciate the yelling, I have to say...

Ahem...

Yes they are. 

A critic is one who judges the quality of a movie to help guide those who are not as well-informed on the qualities that make a film good or bad. A judge of any kind has to be objective to some degree in order to be taken seriously. 

 

Show me a film critic that was always "objective" yet still remained a well known and entertaining writer. I guarantee you wouldn't have to look very far in the Ebert archives to see him get emotional. Heck, some of his most famous reviews were the ones where he couldn't keep his composure.

 

"Objectivity" in movie reviews is a mythical concept used as a way to reframe your personal disagreement as what the "truth" is. Even if critics did somehow achieve it, would it really do anything to satisfy the audiences who disagree with them? No one likes being told their feelings on art are "wrong". Movies aren't criminal law, you're allowed to feel about them how you want to, whether you get paid for expressing those feelings or not.

[Guest]

The reality is, movie critics are slowly realizing their relevance is fading. Similar to the mainstream media. The internet has changed the game. It's a new frontier where basically anyone can review anything and get heard almost as much as a critic could back in the day.

In the old days, critics were more or less the only voices that were "amplified" because they had the access to mediums that put their voice on a megaphone. The internet has completely changed the rules though because now we can hear directly from other fans far more than we used to. And people are starting to find out... that critics often times go out of their way to write in a "thoughtful" way rather than how most people actually think when they watch a movie. A lot of people (not all, and no one in this thread is being accused of such, complete respect to everyone here!) who still cling to critics as the "definitive" opinion on movies or whatever you prefer to call it are merely people who have embraced the fallacy of the labcoat jargon.

Essentially what I mean by that, merely saying you liked a movie because this scene was cool, or that part was great, these people often times want to feel "superior" to the rest of the crowd and saying something was just "cool" or "good" is not enough to "stand out". Writing a 25 page viewed as "great" to these people because in their mind the more "thought out" something looks, the better it is. It's the same logic that critics who are trying to argue something is the opposite of the general public opinion do. They figure if they use big words and write a ton of really "deep" and "intellectual" sounding stuff, that people will feel "stupid" if they don't believe the same thing. It's the age-old "wow, look how much he wrote and all the big words he's using! He must know what he's talking about!" When in reality people seem to refuse to accept the idea that simple arguments can often dismantle really long thought out ones. They just create the illusion that they are "superior" by looking like more work was put into them.

This is often coupled with the good old argument ad nauseum (spelling?), AKA: hit the opposition with so many big words and such long responses that eventually people just get to exhausted countering to where they give up and accept that you're just going to keep going. Critics and their "supporters" are often masters of these tactics to give the illusion that their opinions of things are somehow better or more elevated than the general public.

 

At the end of the day though, my thoughts are this: I can't realistically see the opinions of say... 40 critics to mean more than the opinions of thousands of fans. Especially when those critics have a bias that the fans do not: they don't pay to see movies. That affects their view. They get invited to parties and free gifts from the studios in the hopes that they'll marry that experience with the movie itself. Us average Joes and Janes don't though. That's part of the problem.

Sure, can people "review bomb" a movie, absolutely. However, we are seeing it more often now that critics are often grading movies based upon politics and not the merits of the film and that to me... Makes them pointless. Because what's the point of reviews if they don't really give you an idea if a film is worth watching? The majority of people don't go to the movies to hear their politics echoed, they go to be entertained. So if critics aren't grading based upon what the public wants to see, then I see no value to the average person who is going to read their reviews unless they belong to the snob group that I pointed out above where they feel that they must "stand out" from everyone else by having a more "detailed" opinion so that everyone knows that they are an "intellectual".

 

Watch whatever you like and read whatever you like in terms of reviews, but the reality is slowly closing in on us: the critics of yesterday are slowly going away. The industry is changing. People who still cling to critics are merely living in denial. The internet is changing the game. A lot of people now just look at the general score of a film, and more and more are looking to the audience scores now. It's going to be our reality soon where audience thoughts are going to be the prominent narratives. Critics will go when the MSM is dead or on death's door. Relics of a time in the past who have refused to adapt and change. People can live in denial, but it isn't going to stop the innevitable.

The fact that so many people in this thread alone are showing how prodominately here even that most people don't take critics seriously anymore is kind of showing that push. You'd be hard pressed to find most open forums on the internet where the majority of users take critics seriously.

They had their time, their time is almost over.

[n1029 224]

Social media obviously makes GA opinions more visible now, but studios know that; and they work to control that narrative in promoting movies by using bots and gussying up hype machine blogs with special screenings and gifts in exchange for positive reactions. In that sense critics do still matter because they are the closest thing to a "neutral" voice around the time the movie is released. Audience reactions usually take a couple weeks after release to get an accurate read on because rush viewers are caught up in the novelty haze (related to the stages of grief where they're conflicted between what they want to think and what they really think). And despite all the vague denials of this fact, critics and audiences do eventually tend to be on the same page.

 

Also when it comes to new properties and indie movies screening at film festivals and such, good critical buzz is absolutely essential for their commercial prospects. That's generally the only way major distributors will pick them up and give them a decent promotional campaign and theatrical engagement.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by n1029

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, n1029 said:

Social media obviously makes GA opinions more visible now, but studios know that; and they work to control that narrative in promoting movies by using bots and gussying up hype machine blogs with special screenings and gifts in exchange for positive reactions. In that sense critics do still matter because they are the closest thing to a "neutral" voice around the time the movie is released. Audience reactions usually take a couple weeks after release to get an accurate read on because rush viewers are caught up in the novelty haze (related to the stages of grief where they're conflicted between what they want to think and what they really think). And despite all the vague denials of this fact, critics and audiences do eventually tend to be on the same page.

 

Also when it comes to new properties and indie movies screening at film festivals and such, good critical buzz is absolutely essential for their commercial prospects. That's generally the only way major distributors will pick them up and give them a decent promotional campaign and theatrical engagement.

 

 

I legitimately can’t tell if your argument is for or against critics with this statement. Because this point makes critics look bad.

[n1029 224]

Dunno how you draw that conclusion. All I can say is they're still relevant, and will continue to be as long as there are still non-big franchise movies being made (which I certainly hope is the case)

[Guest]

5 hours ago, n1029 said:

Dunno how you draw that conclusion. All I can say is they're still relevant, and will continue to be as long as there are still non-big franchise movies being made (which I certainly hope is the case)

Pretty sure that isn't going to be true.

The writing is on the wall. As I said, critics are becoming irrelevant and only seem to matter to big studios who cling to them, but we're seeing it more and more that people are tuning critics out. We are approaching a new age where movie creators are starting to realize that fans can speak louder than critics now and saying that "critics loved it!" is no longer getting the promised returns it used to. Look at some of the movies that critics loved and they tried to show off the critic scores but still bombed market wise.

Critics served a unique purpose back in the day, but that purpose is fading because you no longer need critic reviews to get popularity now since people are starting to trust them less and less. The evidence is all around us. Hell, Apex Legends paid Ninja $1 million to advertise their game and he is just a Twitch streamer, not a big name critic for a publication. Clearly, companies are starting to see there is more value in streamers, youtube commentators, etc. because they are starting to invest in those.

I could write pages upon pages of evidence of this happening, but I get the feeling that it will be a waste of my time. I can't convince you, but that's okay.

[n1029 224]

1 hour ago, Zkrahs Yek said:

Hell, Apex Legends paid Ninja $1 million to advertise their game and he is just a Twitch streamer, not a big name critic for a publication. Clearly, companies are starting to see there is more value in streamers, youtube commentators, etc. because they are starting to invest in those.

You realize that taking money to promote a product is exactly what an honorable reviewer is not supposed to do. If this twitch streamer is in the business of just being a promotional outlet that's fine, and maybe it does work. But he's not someone who's giving his unfiltered opinions on his subjects. It truly would be the death of criticism if they all started getting paid millions of dollars to promote films.

 

Film critics might not be a big factor with superhero movies and other big blockbusters that people were going to see no matter what (in which case they act more as a distillation of the reaction to it rather than be the source of the buzz in themselves), but they very much matter when it comes to the movies pining for Oscars and looking for distribution deals out of Sundance. I suspect that isn't an angle that you have much interest in, but it is the big reason the profession still exists today.

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by n1029

[Dashy 4 Ever 4,832]

They simply might not care and do it for money.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, n1029 said:

You realize that taking money to promote a product is exactly what an honorable reviewer is not supposed to do. If this twitch streamer is in the business of just being a promotional outlet that's fine, and maybe it does work. But he's not someone who's giving his unfiltered opinions on his subjects. It truly would be the death of criticism if they all started getting paid millions of dollars to promote films.

 

He was heavily criticized for it. That wasn't the point. The point was the the company who gave him the money saw a million dollars in VALUE to have him say things about their product. That speaks volumes. It says that companies are clearly seeing the value in non-critics more and more. Seldom are critics offered such a bribe. That's the point.

1 hour ago, n1029 said:

but they very much matter when it comes to the movies pining for Oscars

The oscars and other award shows are bought and paid for. They aren't even real "awards".

[n1029 224]

26 minutes ago, Zkrahs Yek said:

The point was the the company who gave him the money saw a million dollars in VALUE to have him say things about their product. That speaks volumes. It says that companies are clearly seeing the value in non-critics more and more. Seldom are critics offered such a bribe. That's the point.

 

But I thought all the critics were being bribed  . 

Anyway, critic reactions are still very much present in film advertising. Problem is everyone does it and they get blended in with less legit sources and the quotes get taken out of context to seem more enthusiastic. That's where a site like Rotten Tomatoes is most useful as a way to get an idea of what they really think.

40 minutes ago, Zkrahs Yek said:

The oscars and other award shows are bought and paid for. They aren't even real "awards".

 

I have my problems with the Oscars but the point is there are hundreds of movies made every year and laypeople don't ever find out about most of them unless film critics are on board. They wouldn't even care enough to watch it and claim it's overrated unless someone overrated it in the first place.

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, n1029 said:

But I thought all the critics were being bribed  . 

 

Literally never said that.

 

It's clear we're just going to keep going in circles and then you're going to put words in my mouth, so this is where I get off. It's pretty evident to me that you have no interest in changing your stance in any capacity, so I don't see a dialogue between the two of us as productive.

 

Have a good one, but I'll be ducking out here. I'm not interested in wasting my time.

 

 

 

[ChB 18,532]

On 2/18/2019 at 11:42 AM, TBD said:

It's like a hit and miss for me. Sometime I would agreed with the critics and sometime I don't.

Pretty much sums it up, for me.

Movies I liked that got <50% among Critics and >50% among the GA (General Audience): 21, The Bench Warmers; Pokemon The First Movie; The Mummy Returns; Resident Evil Apocalypse; Skyscraper; and probably many more.

Movies I liked that got >50% among Critics and <50% among the GA: Star Wars The Last Jedi; Stuart Little 2; Snakes on a Plane.

Movies I liked that got <50% among both Critics and the GA: Hey Arnold The Movie; Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides; A Cure For Wellness; Poseidon (2006 remake); The Mummy (2017 reboot); Chicken Little; 

Movies I disliked that got >50% among both critics and the GA: Blade Runner 2049; Finding Dory; Up; Hugo; A Fistful of Dollars.

[n1029 224]

13 hours ago, Zkrahs Yek said:

Literally never said that.

 

And I never said you did. Someone else in this thread did, though, so I remain unclear on what the actual rationale for their supposed lack of relevance is. Perhaps it was wrong of me to lump all the anti-critic narratives together, but they just all seem so arbitrary and flimsily justified to me that I feel like they're just pulled out at random by anyone for rhetorical purposes.

 

I mean, I recognize people in general (including myself) are more interested in saving face than actually admitting they should alter their feelings about a subject, but I feel pretty strongly on this one and have a lot of experience stating my case on it. I'm content with the likelihood that any minds I might change won't actually give me credit for it, but I'll keep trying as long as I think there's an angle I can work with.  

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by n1029

[Guest]

7 hours ago, n1029 said:

And I never said you did. Someone else in this thread did, though, so I remain unclear on what the actual rationale for their supposed lack of relevance is. Perhaps it was wrong of me to lump all the anti-critic narratives together, but they just all seem so arbitrary and flimsily justified to me that I feel like they're just pulled out at random by anyone for rhetorical purposes.

 

I mean, I recognize people in general (including myself) are more interested in saving face than actually admitting they should alter their feelings about a subject, but I feel pretty strongly on this one and have a lot of experience stating my case on it. I'm content with the likelihood that any minds I might change won't actually give me credit for it, but I'll keep trying as long as I think there's an angle I can work with.  

 

Take my advice then: change your approach.

Your rather... Aggressive and somewhat condescending approach is not going to win many people over.

[n1029 224]

52 minutes ago, Zkrahs Yek said:

Take my advice then: change your approach.

Your rather... Aggressive and somewhat condescending approach is not going to win many people over.

 

I'm not sure if there is a way for me to be nicer on this subject while still having any hope of being persuasive. The "critics are useless" rhetoric has existed for as long as I can remember and the original post of this thread (along with the ensuing replies) seemed like more of that groan inducing boilerplate often used by defensive fanboys when they don't like their movies getting trashed. I feel like this mentality has played a major role in the "toxic fan" culture that has become a huge problem on social media today, and it's not one that's easily addressed with cold hard facts alone. I could go on and on about all the movies critics and audiences have in fact been in agreement on recently, but i suspect that it'd just be met with more cherry picked exceptions or vague strawman anecdotes. This issue really is a lot more about personal insecurities with tastes in art than in how "useful" film critics are, and I don't think there is a non condescending way to point that out.

 

Edited March 23, 2019 by n1029